Legal Writing Assignment

Five cases. I want to extract from the cases.
The answers are simple. I can show you the example of a professor
I. Issue
1-2 sentences summarizing the issue analyzed
II. Procedural History
– 1 or more sentences laying out the procedural history
III. Facts
– List out the relevant facts that are needed for your analysis now and in the future.
IV. Holding
– What was the analysis of the court?
– What was the relevant rule applied?
V. Rationale
– How did the court apply the facts to the rule?
– What was the court’s justification for the conclusion it reached?
VI. Disposition
– What did the court order the trial court to do?
– Or did the court not change anything?

I want like this,
Issue:
1. Is a customer list a trade secret under the UTSA
Procedural History
1. Preliminary injunction was granted by trial court prohibiting use of customer list.
Facts
1. August 17, 1985 Kirgan stops working for Am. Paper
2. Starts working for a competitor
Holding:
1. Customer lists can be trade secrets
2. This customer list does not qualify as a trade secret
Rationale
1. Customer lists can be trade secrets because equitable principles no longer govern following adoption of UTSA.
a. Equitable principles are superseded by the text of the UTSA
i. Reliance on the five-prong test set forth in Aetna Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. West, supra, 39 Cal.2d 198, 204, 205, or the three-prong test set forth in Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal Co. v. Turley, supra, 622 F.2d 1324, is not proper because they were decided before the adoption by this state of the UTSA and enactment of statutes codifying same.
2. Customer list to qualify as a trade secret requires
a. independent economic value
i. While the information sought to be protected here, that is lists of customers who operate manufacturing concerns and who need shipping supplies to ship their products to market, may not be generally known to the public, they certainly would be known or readily ascertainable to other persons in the shipping business. The compilation process in this case is neither sophisticated nor difficult nor particularly time consuming. The evidence presented shows that the shipping business is very competitive and that manufacturers will often deal with more than one company at a time. There is no evidence that all of appellant’s competition comes from respondents’ new employer. Obviously, all the competitors have secured the same information that appellant claims and, in all likelihood, did so in the same manner as appellant [*** 15] – a process described herein by respondents. Thoughts appellant claims a 95 percent repeat business and that once a good relationship is established the customer usually deals only with one shipper, he does not show that the 95 percent repeat business is exclusive, and he cites no examples of exclusive business relationships.
b. And “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain [their] secrecy?”
i. To support its contention of confidentiality in its customer lists, appellant points to the terms of the employee agreements. These agreements purport to make respondents subcontractors of appellant. Term 6, subdivision d, of the employee agreements [** 717] states: “[the] parties hereby stipulated [sic] that, as [*** 12] between them, the foregoing matters are important, material, and confidential and gravely affect the effective and successful conduct of the business of Contractor, and its goodwill,… ” The “foregoing matters” referred to included any list of names, addresses or telephone numbers of customers whether compiled by the subcontractor or provided to subcontractor by the contractor and any “information concerning the business of Contractor,… Its plans, processes, or other data of any kind, …. ”
c.
Disposition
1. Injunctive relief denied